손해배상(기)
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 101,298,896 with the Plaintiff and Defendant A with respect thereto from August 27, 2014 to August 31, 2015.
1. The Plaintiff asserts that the cause of the claim is as indicated in the separate sheet. Such facts are acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the respective entries of Gap evidence Nos. 1-17 (including the number of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) between the Plaintiff, Defendant C, D, E, F, and G, and the Plaintiff, Defendant A, and H.
According to the above, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 101,298,896 won on behalf of the Plaintiff and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from August 27, 2014 to August 31, 2015, which is the day following the date on which the Plaintiff claims for reimbursement, 12% per annum from August 27, 2014 to August 31, 2015, 8% per annum from the day following the day of service of the complaint to April 12, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of payment.
In addition, Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, jointly with Defendant A, have a duty to pay damages for losses incurred by the Plaintiff due to the said tort, 101,298,896 won by subrogation, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act, from August 27, 2014, the day following the date on which the Plaintiff claims damages, until May 26, 2016, which is the date of final delivery of the complaint filed by the Plaintiff, and damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. Determination as to Defendant H’s assertion
A. Defendant H does not have any planned involvement in the fraud of the loan, or there was no conspiracy with the remaining Defendants, and the fake employment certificate was also used for the loan fraud. ② Defendant H deposited a sum of KRW 40 million in a financial institution as a repayment for damages in a criminal case against himself/herself (Sacheon District Court Decision 2014DaMa612 case). As such, the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s guarantee rate out of that amount should be deducted, and ③ his/her participation level is somewhat weak.